Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechExcel DevSuite


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The consensus is to keep - but if someone want to create a sourced article about the company, I am happy to email them the text of this article to be incorporated into that.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

TechExcel DevSuite

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not indicate notability. Only third-party references read like press-releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I failed to find any references that don't look like paid promotion. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The award references in the article do check out; as with many industry-specific awards it can be difficult to assess real relevance, but there are technical readership awards in there, and the suite was a Stevie Awards finalist. But there are also reliable-looking book references (I added one to the article) and others such as this in snippet view, describing it as a "market-leading defect and project tracking solution". Enough I think for a presumption against non-notability. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Stevie Awards don't help, as this is a business award, not a software one. Business award is a good point in the article about the company, but not about software. The books are a good point in keeping it, but I'm not convinced that the software of a kind can possibly be notable: it is only of niche professional interest; the article itself suggests 1500 customers. I think the answer for this question can be directly translated to keep or delete outcome by the closing admin. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take your point about niche professional s/w - difficult to be firm on notability. Your comments raise a wider question: rather than an article entitled "TechExcel DevSuite", which is after all a bundling of various products, would it be better renamed to "TechExcel" and repurposed to cover the company as a business? They do also have a Service Desk product range, which appears to have some recognition (assuming I managed to see past the press releases) and which would then also have a home position. AllyD (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that moving and repurposing the article to TechExcel company with brief description of products would be a good idea, but then we need at least to prove that TechExcel passes WP:NCORP. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to TechExcel and diversify. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing GNG. Like nominator, I can't find significant coverage of this product in RS or the company as passing NCORP. Minor industry awards are not convincing. TechExcel may make good software, but I can't find any sources which cover it or its products indepth. Article appears to be written by someone (User:PattiCakes91; 28 edits) inside the company. TechExcel ServiceWise has all the same issues (written by User:Techwizization; 10 edits). Virtually everything about both articles is marketing-related. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.